Sorry if that came off as snark to you, but I suppose that's what warranted your awesomely deep one-liner as a response. I, for one, think that a soft power advantage is way bigger when your internal link is a national policy as opposed to 50 state policies (even if they are all the same). The evidence about states "solving soft power" is really just about how some states have done foreign policy stuff in the past, but none of that evidence indicates that it shores up the kind of soft power for the US nationally that it would broker in the kind of cooperation advantages which lead to the bigger soft power impacts. Certainly none of that stuff makes sense in the context of the soft power key to hard power internal links, either.

But I do find it ironic that the heg advantage is enough of an argument to allay concerns about alternate actor CP's on international topics, but the heg advantage isn't enough to allay concerns about alternatve actor CP's on domestic topics. I understand that this isn't a strict parallel, but you know K debater and all.

I really question whether or not Kelly is concerned to add to this discussion; I, for one, feel that there aren't good answers to the states counterplan because it is a fake CP. And I agree with Malgor that we allow this fake argument to terrorize how we skirt discussions of topics of the utmost importance. So, I feel that I could sit here all day and produce the most thoughtful frontlines about why the states CP is bad, but Kelly would not be satisfied.

However, this isn't to say that there aren't plenty of federal warrants that take the form of solvency deficits, but these are all generic and apparently foregone conclusions (states have limited jurisdiction over federal workplaces and the health insurance they offer; states have no jurisdiction over Indian Country; women in Washington DC?; etc etc). This is because the solvency deficit in the literature which is the most "real world" gets fiatted over by the negative, and so we've come back to square one about this.

I feel that the answer to these concerns absolutely need to be that the states CP is illegit, but Kelly is probably right about how this means will we distort our understanding of domestic topics for the foreseeable future.

Would it have been better if the topic paper did not acknowledge the existence of the states CP?

Given the fact that negative teams will undoubtedly run the states Cp, it would be absurd to skirt the issue. Maybe i'm wrong about this but I seem to recall that on previous topics there has always been some form of counter plan that does the aff and avoids the politics da, i'm not sure why the states Cp, an equally artificial argument, is somehow more threatening than say, the npr Cp on the nukes topic, the EU Cp last year, etc.

I think it is equally absurd to suppose that this neg strat is somehow unbeatable. I won't reiterate the earlier claims but I do think that the burden of a topic paper should not be to prove that the states Cp is unwinnable, just that it is beatable. Affs on this topic not only have access to persuasive theoretical objections but also to soft power advantages and women's rights lit that explicitly claims that national protection is better that state-by-state protection both in theory and in practice, as such I am not clear what aff tools are left out under this topic that do exist and have existed on other topics and are necessary to resolve the immanent threat of the states-politics 2nr.

Obviously, VAWA has a federal action key warrant. Reproductive rights likely has a congressional or SCOTUS warrant, as the Casey debates on the Courts topic made clear ... Interesting area, I like domestic topics, I really liked the Title 7 debate topic.

why doesn't the wording process, which could choose to only include the topic areas which do have a federal key warrant, resolve the lack of fg key warrants under some areas? and even if it didn't what is the harm in including topic areas that the states cp would slay? if the states cp is so dangerous, wouldn't that just dissuade people from reading those affs anyway, thus artificially limiting the topic? it seems from the tenor of these comments that you do believe that there are fed key warrants in this topic area, so I am unsure what the objection actually is, especially since it applies to virtually any topic I can imagine.

I don't have much of a quibble with what you've said- I agree A LOT with your assessment of why theory is sometimes a non-option, but would you also agree there is a heightened disposition against generics in those very same high-pressure rounds? Does that dampen the impact of a class of highly influential critics believing theory is a non-starter?

Maybe. I'm not sure that it does, for a few reasons.

First, the specific rounds that we're discussing (which also tend to set broader practice) often involve new affirmatives. This modifies any disposition against generics.

Secondly, I'm not sure that such a disposition exists. I think that several decisions for the negative in the finals of National Debate Tournament revolved around fairly generic argumentation.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, states (and other generic counterplans such as EU) tend to radically limit the scope of topics and advantages - in ways that are then mutually co-productive with theoretical practice. This precedes the debate. It changes the risk calculus when choosing your affirmative.

Put more concretely, we debate quite a narrow range of available domestic affirmatives, because you'd have to make a bad risk calculation to roll in with an aff that the states could obviously solve. It's hard to know how your panel will react to pushing all in on state fiat dumb. It's especially hard to predetermine in the research phase. It's well-nigh impossible when judges' theoretical statements in philosophies may contradict their actual performance in high-pressure rounds.

A rational debater under those circumstances says "meh, why take a risk? I'll design around my fed key warrant and get really good at those, because I can probably win more ballots (over time) on those arguments."

When enough rational debaters make this decision, running a clearly states-able aff looks like a rook move, and judge sympathy tends to evaporate.

I certainly agree it's a question that involves how debates are judged, but I also sense it is a way that theory is actively debated these days. Tough to find the way out of the conundrum because they are interconnected problems that reinforce each other.

All I know is two of my earliest college debates entailed Hardy just beating my ass on 'dispo bad' (he may not remember but man do I still have the scars) and Izak beating my ass on 'inherency is a voter for Toni Nielson'....still trying to figure the second one out.

I don't know the stage of the tournament when that occurred. Regardless, it's probably meaningful that "dispositionality bad" is actually a lower risk and more rational calculation than "state fiat bad." It doesn't implicate aff selection. If you choose to research something states-able, you have to win state fiat bad in front of *all* the judges, not just once in a while. You also probably have to meaningfully mitigate the disad and beat back some additional case defense as well. Absent some incredibly explicit judge sympathy, you just won't set up a relatively difficult and perilous 2AR.

Hardy went for dispositionality bad, but I doubt that was his game plan when designing his affirmative. Only Hardy knows.

As a side note, I don't intend for this digressive discussion to reflect too much on the women's rights topic or paper, which I think is excellent work. I simply want to counter the meme that theory offense is a reliable counter against agent CPs. It might be, but it's still very dicey for smart 2As and case designers.

I want to thank Antonucci for a thoughtful and insightful post. I agree with most of it; many judges seem unwilling to vote on an argument because of the way it makes them feel, especially in high-pressure situations like elims at majors. I can't really dispute that this phenomena exists, though I would like to impact turn it.

Thanks and likewise. What do you mean by impact turn in this context? I'm not really sure I have much of an impact claim - this evolution of theory might be good and it might be bad (although I'm clearly in the "slightly bad" camp.) My intention is more diagnostic than prescriptive, really.

I think that Antonucci underemphasizes the effect of how well the debaters handle theory arguments, and I think that if debaters were better at it, it would push back against some judges' apprehension towards voting for theory generally speaking.

Maybe. It's difficult to say absent empirical evidence. I helped JSharp coach a high school team that took down some big debates on theoretical arguments this past year, which was certainly refreshing and helps your argument.

I do think that the collective action dilemma is still in place, though. If you're a brilliant theory debater, you still might lose one judge out of ten on "meh" - so you can never count on theory when selecting arguments, particularly your affirmative.

I also presume that the pushback you describe is an *evolutionary* process, not a *revolutionary* one. That's very meaningful for the dilemma. A few people might want to go down in glory as the angels sing on, say, an issue of social justice. No one wants to martyr themselves for "state fiat bad" in the quarters.

I also think that Antonucci over-emphasizes how this would effect strategic thinking regarding, for example, pref sheets, because I don't think one would be excluding 15% of critics 80% of the time. I think, at best, you'd be worried about these critics half of the time (i.e., that half of the time you were aff), but if we are only thinking strategically, it seems like one would make up for this by being neg 50% of the time.

Your math is about pref sheet selection, I think. For the purposes of topic design, I'm really talking about aff selection.

What I'm really saying is that a good debater would never pick an aff that probably writes off one ballot out of twenty or even one out of thirty. Why not design around the fed key warrant and go for ALL the ballots? Of course, if everyone makes the same decision, we've collectively decimated aff variety and potentially cut out the heart of many resolutions, via a series of individually rational decisions. Even if 5% of the pool will probably never vote on "states bad," they have a very disproportionate impact by intervening at the level of aff design.

Very clear judging statements (I WANT TO VOTE AGAINST STATES) shift this calculus, because we can pref those judges and keep a statesable aff in the back pocket (presuming that we're willing to reject neg states-CP-dependence.) I don't think philosophies are currently clear enough to overcome rational fear. Instead, I think judges should explicitly declare: "Yes, I'll vote on this in the semis. Yes, I'll drop a first round team on this even if they're housing their opponents most other places. Yes - I will END YOUR CAREER on state fiat bad." Those are the contingencies that really affect practice, not vague boilerplate.

Again, this discussion is only tangentially a reflection on the proposed women's rights topic.

excuses, excuses, excuses. a truth: many debaters can't win multiactor bad. that's why they don't want to go for it. or they run it on the neg a lot, and don't want to contribute to creating a culture in debate that rejects the arg they love going for in 50% of the rounds.

i have lots of sympathy for debaters especially when it comes to things like evolving norms-they do have to consider their judging etc. but look at the circle of life... the top debaters now get top coaching through high school and then spend 2 months every summer at camp being taught by what are considered some of the best coaches/judges in the country, then those very same people judge them in outrounds in high school and the ndt and the major nationals. It is certainly insular to a degree, and it is undeniable that many of the most well-trained debaters have had contact and learned from the same people that judge them, and get them in these important rounds.

My point is not that there is some shady elitist cabal-only insofar as the market naturally creates a separation-but that, if it's these huge rounds (quarters, oh my!) you're concerned about, I'm even less convinced, because those rounds often particularly show how judges, coaches, and debaters all reinforce one another. Hell looking over the outround sheet at the NDT is a decent collection of judges who are skeptical of multi/alternate actor.

maybe it's better that antonucci focuses on the big rounds, because my other feeling is that if we are talking bout the 'top' teams in a given year, they can in fact defeat many of the teams in the country on theoretical issues. Of course, that is usually because of a talent gap that also means they can beat them on a solvency deficit that would probably not work against a top 5 team.

And this whole hesitation to vote thing works both ways. Why is the judge only hesitant to end the career of the team defending multi-actor? Are we basically admitting that judging is not only subjective, it's shady because judges change norms based on the quality of teams they are judging? I would actually agree with that statement to a large degree, but I doubt others feel the same way.

"Very clear judging statements (I WANT TO VOTE AGAINST STATES) shift this calculus, because we can pref those judges and keep a statesable aff in the back pocket (presuming that we're willing to reject neg states-CP-dependence.) I don't think philosophies are currently clear enough to overcome rational fear. Instead, I think judges should explicitly declare: "Yes, I'll vote on this in the semis. Yes, I'll drop a first round team on this even if they're housing their opponents most other places. Yes - I will END YOUR CAREER on state fiat bad." Those are the contingencies that really affect practice, not vague boilerplate."

Antonucci is right on again with this description, though it really angers me (not you antonucci, snarkiness aside you paint the case against relying on theory as compelling as one can). You wouldn't need this kind of thinking with any other argument in debate. No philosophy would say "If the aff loses the DA, i'll vote against them in the prelims...the outrounds....i will even END YOUR CAREER ON THE DISAD."

Maybe we should start doing that, so judges can indicate to debaters just how important the round needs to become before they won't vote on a disad or critique.

I probably agree with a lot of these statements factually? I don't have quite as strong a normative stance on this as you do. I think this could use some fixin', but I'm not particularly outraged.

Debaters didn't make the argumentative world. Neither did coaches and judges, really, although they have more influence than individual debaters. The nature of a collective action dilemma renders blame-casting in any one direction futile. It's important to figure out how we got here, but hopefully that excavation's directed toward some ways out of suboptimal practice.

excuses, excuses, excuses. a truth: many debaters can't win multiactor bad. that's why they don't want to go for it. or they run it on the neg a lot, and don't want to contribute to creating a culture in debate that rejects the arg they love going for in 50% of the rounds.

Hmmm. Maybe. That assigns some pretty deep awareness of evolutionary consequences to the fine debaters of this community - in high pressure situations. Do you really think that they're thinking about "creating a culture" in their break round? It seems more likely that they are thinking "WIN WIN WIN I WILL WIN, COMMUNITY = tldr".

i have lots of sympathy for debaters especially when it comes to things like evolving norms-they do have to consider their judging etc. but look at the circle of life... the top debaters now get top coaching through high school and then spend 2 months every summer at camp being taught by what are considered some of the best coaches/judges in the country, then those very same people judge them in outrounds in high school and the ndt and the major nationals. It is certainly insular to a degree, and it is undeniable that many of the most well-trained debaters have had contact and learned from the same people that judge them, and get them in these important rounds.

My point is not that there is some shady elitist cabal-only insofar as the market naturally creates a separation-but that, if it's these huge rounds (quarters, oh my!) you're concerned about, I'm even less convinced, because those rounds often particularly show how judges, coaches, and debaters all reinforce one another. Hell looking over the outround sheet at the NDT is a decent collection of judges who are skeptical of multi/alternate actor.

Well, I'm not really directly concerned about the quarters. My debater career is long over and wasn't very distinguished. I might go to a pro round robin, but I suspect I'd get rolled by Hester/Sharp (among others).

I think the debaters are very concerned about them, though. I also think that debaters design their plays according to their perception of the refs. That's why I consider my postings on this issue largely diagnostic.

As you say, these rounds probably do show how this is mutually reinforcing. My post is largely an attempt to describe how that process works, to potentially puzzle out why states is such a Gordian knot for the community.

maybe it's better that antonucci focuses on the big rounds, because my other feeling is that if we are talking bout the 'top' teams in a given year, they can in fact defeat many of the teams in the country on theoretical issues. Of course, that is usually because of a talent gap that also means they can beat them on a solvency deficit that would probably not work against a top 5 team.

Well, I'm not really focused on one particular level. I do think it's possible that judges are very likely to think long and hard about voting on "state fiat bad" in the finals. I don't think that every judge will be particularly hesitant, but even a small minority is sufficient to impat topic selection and argument design.

And this whole hesitation to vote thing works both ways. Why is the judge only hesitant to end the career of the team defending multi-actor? Are we basically admitting that judging is not only subjective, it's shady because judges change norms based on the quality of teams they are judging? I would actually agree with that statement to a large degree, but I doubt others feel the same way.

I think that there's a perception that judges don't want to make what they perceive as "ticky-tack" calls in very big debates. This is sort of parallel to the idea that NBA refs want to let them "play through it" in the final two minutes of a playoff game. Strictly anecdotal evidence points to a modification of norms under these circumstances.

I don't think that modification is really shady. Maybe it's a good idea. I'm not that into it myself, but I can imagine an intelligent defense of it.

Either way, it makes states a difficult specter to put to rest, even if we all hate it.

"Very clear judging statements (I WANT TO VOTE AGAINST STATES) shift this calculus, because we can pref those judges and keep a statesable aff in the back pocket (presuming that we're willing to reject neg states-CP-dependence.) I don't think philosophies are currently clear enough to overcome rational fear. Instead, I think judges should explicitly declare: "Yes, I'll vote on this in the semis. Yes, I'll drop a first round team on this even if they're housing their opponents most other places. Yes - I will END YOUR CAREER on state fiat bad." Those are the contingencies that really affect practice, not vague boilerplate."

Antonucci is right on again with this description, though it really angers me (not you antonucci, snarkiness aside you paint the case against relying on theory as compelling as one can). You wouldn't need this kind of thinking with any other argument in debate. No philosophy would say "If the aff loses the DA, i'll vote against them in the prelims...the outrounds....i will even END YOUR CAREER ON THE DISAD."

Haha, well, in fairness, it's unlikely that any philosophy would be as absurdly over the top as the one I've hypothesized (GO FOR CONSULT AND I WILL EAT YOUR KINFOLK! RARRRRRRRR)

There certainly is a perception - whether empirically supported or just anecdotally conjectured - that no one wants to resolve a good debate on the basis of theoretical objections, because theory debates tend to be light on evidence, light on clash, difficult to flow, and generally pretty trite. Some of those factors can be overcome by superior debating, but some can't, and it's really tough to stake a debate on an issue where you're swimming against the current.

Evidenced debaters are perceived as meatier. Also, if I decide on theory, what am I supposed to do with my card reading time? Play Minecraft?

because theory debates tend to be light on evidence, light on clash, difficult to flow, and generally pretty trite.

I think that you might be getting the stated reasons right, but I disagree overall. I feel that theory debates that debaters intend to go for tend to be quite flowable, and these aren't the kind of theory debates that I recommend my debaters engage in when they know, for example, that theory is the best answer to a certain CP. Same for the triteness. Same for clash. These are all strawperson arguments--you're saying that a lot of theory debates are bad, and I agree. I think that if debaters were serious about tackling a CP with theory, they would slow down, answer opponents' arguments, etc.

However, one part of Antonucci's account stands out. There is very little evidence in theory debates. And I think that once judges can no longer orient themselves within the "slave morality of the tyranny of evidence," they really just don't know what to do with themselves. Yet, on the other hand, theory and topicality are the kinds of arguments where we tend to emphasize students' independent reasoning (and, indeed, all of us tend to say in our philosophies that well-grounded analytics with strong warrants are just as good as newspaper clippings), but it doesn't seem that a lot of us follow through in practice.

I think Antonucci is mostly right in his diagnosis; I think what I meant by "impact turn" earlier was simply that I think the whole phenomenon is rotten. If debaters win a theory argument, the judge should vote on it, period. Perhaps I am bitter, but perhaps the contrapositive of Antonucci's solution is best: perhaps judges should put in their philosophies, "If you win a theory argument, I am unwilling to vote on it in the following situations..." Perhaps the absurdity could be further underlined by writing, "If you win the following arguments, I still won't vote for you..."

I am about 98% of the way there in terms of being convinced to put something like Antonucci's disclaimer about states into my judge philosophy...still struggling a bit with how top-down the approach is. I'd rather that debaters just get good at going for theory on the aff.

I think that you might be getting the stated reasons right, but I disagree overall. I feel that theory debates that debaters intend to go for tend to be quite flowable, and these aren't the kind of theory debates that I recommend my debaters engage in when they know, for example, that theory is the best answer to a certain CP. Same for the triteness. Same for clash.

Well, I'm describing a perception more than a reality, so even if you're correct, it doesn't change the meter on my diagnosis.

Very tangentially:

-- Distinguishing between "theory debates that debaters intend to go for" and other theory debates seems to be more a function of the phenomenon we're discussing than a solution. Perm do the CP is certainly quite winnable, and those debates are probably better. Unfortunately, state fiat bad/nonsequitur is rarely in serious play.

-- I don't know if I'm a terrible flow or judge bad debates (probably both) but in many debates, my theory flow prior to the 1AR has down something like "HURR HURR HURR" and maybe something about neg flex and a counterinterpretation, which makes it hard to get really pumped about resolving the debate there.

These are all strawperson arguments--you're saying that a lot of theory debates are bad, and I agree. I think that if debaters were serious about tackling a CP with theory, they would slow down, answer opponents' arguments, etc.

We agree. My arguments are probably straw person, because I'm describing a phenomenon instead of endorsing it. More like a straw MONSTER?

However, one part of Antonucci's account stands out. There is very little evidence in theory debates. And I think that once judges can no longer orient themselves within the "slave morality of the tyranny of evidence," they really just don't know what to do with themselves. Yet, on the other hand, theory and topicality are the kinds of arguments where we tend to emphasize students' independent reasoning (and, indeed, all of us tend to say in our philosophies that well-grounded analytics with strong warrants are just as good as newspaper clippings), but it doesn't seem that a lot of us follow through in practice.

I think Antonucci is mostly right in his diagnosis; I think what I meant by "impact turn" earlier was simply that I think the whole phenomenon is rotten. If debaters win a theory argument, the judge should vote on it, period. Perhaps I am bitter, but perhaps the contrapositive of Antonucci's solution is best: perhaps judges should put in their philosophies, "If you win a theory argument, I am unwilling to vote on it in the following situations..." Perhaps the absurdity could be further underlined by writing, "If you win the following arguments, I still won't vote for you..."

We probably agree about the impact direction, although I'm more sympathetic to the "play through it" school, I think.

I think that solution is a bit unfair. Collective action dilemmas aren't corrupt or conspiracies. They're an evolutionary phenomenon, which takes a bit of engineering to reverse.

More importantly, your solution won't work. If debaters are explicitly permitted to go for certain arguments, they'll be more likely to take a risk. If they read the boilerplate "I'll vote on anything" in a philosophy, they'll (very reasonably and intelligently) presume that many of the status quo premises are just implicit, so continue to engage in reasonable risk-averse behavior.

I've been busy planning an end of the year event, so I've been gone since my last post. From the reaction, I'm sure this pleased everyone.

My apologies for raising the concern. It was actually a sincere interest to discuss the issue beyond the theoretical legitimacy of States CP. I simply don't understand why asking the question, "why federal action necessary?" isn't germane to any domestic topic, much like the "why is U.S. action necessary?" question is to international topics. But I'm apparently the only person who sees things this way, so I will shut up. Anyway, again, sorry.

And my response to the soft power DA was sincere as well. The soft power argument is in fact solved by the states CP. Debates on the treaties topic over the DP protocol demonstrates this. However, the CP (and federalism DA link) does poorly against solid federal government action necessary claims, as the fed necessary is also an important internal link to the soft power DA. I apologize that I didn't explain further.

i think one reason people are a little unwilling to put some of these absolutes in their judging philosophy is that many, many absolutes are rendered more contingent by what occurs in the debate. the only thing worse than someone not knowing your exact feelings on an issue as a judge might be when you say one thing but then counteract your stated preference as a result of what occurs in the debate round.

To some extent this parallels the higher level of execution requirement that often comes along with some folks: i.e. Brian McBride loves the K, but also rues those who do not practice it expertly, I can imagine a billion good arguments against consult counterplans but if you only make bad ones who knows how I might subconsciously react to that failure on your part etc. etc.

As far as the circularity/negative-feedback-loop concern about debate pedagogy, there's a good episode of Mad Men where Don Draper is trying to pitch an alternative tagline for a product for women. The most attractive pitch to the company is one that emphasizes family and the home, but Don's firm has an alternate suggestion that relies on a more modern message focusing on the independence/agency of women. When he receives skeptical responses ("Our research says they respond to family, etc.!") Don simply replies "How can you know what else they might like if they've never been exposed to it?"

Debates/coaches do themselves a grave disservice if they think their judges beliefs/preferences are truly carved in stone, There are exceptions (might still keep Hardy at an arms length with your consultation counterplan if you want to keep your points up), but generally the actual thing occurring in the debate rounds matters an AWFUL lot. Sometimes people have preferences because they haven't been exposed to the opposing viewpoint in a while, and if at some point in the pedagogical chain the dialectic has broken down, it sounds like there's a market inefficiency waiting to be exploited.